CFE - 15/3/2007 5:20 AMIn looking at the recurring theme of "minimal ascent cabins," an obvious question comes to mind. Why not come up with a minimalist lander that would touch down next door to a larger habitat module for the astronauts to live in?
Jim - 15/3/2007 8:54 AMIt doesn't make sense for the first phase of lunar mission, i.e. the sorties. One lander is needed that supports 4 crew for x days. The first phase will have landers going to different places to find a spot for the first base
copernicus - 30/3/2007 9:54 AMI still find Lockheed-Martin's proposed Lunar Lander (LASM) to be the most realistic and flexible.
Norm Hartnett - 2/4/2007 9:23 PMThe above combined with this articlehttp://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5063What I find most interesting about this is that it is not dependant on the Ares/Constellation LVs. Using the Atlas V Heavy means that an alternative to the NASA ESAS exists and that some form of lunar operations may be viable using existing LVs if the CEV can be launched on some other LV besides the stick.With robotic precursors delivering both payload and multiple power generation capabilities as well as a backup ascent module the initial base would be ready for assembly prior to the first manned mission. This is a well thought out program and I would love to see what the cost figures would be.
Jim - 15/3/2007 8:54 AMQuoteCFE - 15/3/2007 5:20 AMIn looking at the recurring theme of "minimal ascent cabins," an obvious question comes to mind. Why not come up with a minimalist lander that would touch down next door to a larger habitat module for the astronauts to live in?It doesn't make sense for the first phase of lunar mission, i.e. the sorties. One lander is needed that supports 4 crew for x days. The first phase will have landers going to different places to find a spot for the first base
simonbp - 15/3/2007 5:02 PMQuoteJim - 15/3/2007 8:54 AMIt doesn't make sense for the first phase of lunar mission, i.e. the sorties. One lander is needed that supports 4 crew for x days. The first phase will have landers going to different places to find a spot for the first base... And Griffin's recent comments suggest that after 2021 there will be 1 sortie (not lunar base) mission each year, in addition to 2 base crew rotations and 1 base cargo. So, to keep from having to support two different landers, you want as much commonality as possible between the sortie and base landers...Simon
vanilla - 24/2/2007 12:18 PMIf they want to move towards a sustainable, reusable architecture someday with ISRU (which I have to assume is the reason for the South Pole landing site) then they need to moving away from staging, not towards it. Otherwise, they will be looking at a total lander redesign when they want to get to a better architecture.
alexterrell - 9/4/2007 3:46 PMDidn't see this comment, but in principle, wouldn't it be more efficient to scrap the sorties, and instead land a really capable Rover able to cover several thousand kilometres?Has this trade-off been done?
simonbp - 10/4/2007 2:14 PMQuotealexterrell - 9/4/2007 3:46 PMDidn't see this comment, but in principle, wouldn't it be more efficient to scrap the sorties, and instead land a really capable Rover able to cover several thousand kilometres?Has this trade-off been done?See the JPL design in the above document; basically it's a lunar base on wheels that travels from nearside equatorial down to the south pole, accumulating modules along the way...Simon
Ankle-bone12 - 19/4/2007 6:43 PManybody see the new "returning to the moon" trailer on the nasa web sight?heres the URLhttp://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html
copernicus - 25/5/2007 4:04 PM What are the prospects for launching this with the Ares-1 or the Atlas-5 or the Delta-4, perhaps with a partial propellant load on the Lunar Lander? I think that we need to start bending metal on the Lunar Lander soon.